Electricians help Habitat for Humanity

Rural Electrification Poverty Impact examines energy access, grid connections, and reliability, testing economic development claims via randomized trials; findings show minimal gains without appliances, reliable supply, and complementary services like education and job creation initiatives.

Key Points

Study of household grid connections showing modest poverty impact without reliable power and appliances.

✅ Randomized grid connections showed no short-term income gains.

✅ Low reliability and few appliances limited electricity use.

✅ Complementary investments in jobs, education, health may be needed.

The head of Swedfund, the development finance group, recently summarized a widely-held belief: “Access to reliable electricity drives development and is essential for job creation, women’s empowerment and combating poverty.” This view has been the driving force behind a number of efforts to provide electricity to the 1.1 billion people around the world living in energy poverty, such as India's village electrification initiatives in recent years.

But does electricity really help lift households out of poverty? My co-authors and I set out to answer this question. We designed an experiment in which we first identified a sample of “under grid” households in Western Kenya—structures that were located close to but not connected to a grid. These households were then randomly divided into treatment and control groups. In the treatment group, we worked closely with the rural electrification agency to connect the households to the grid for free or at various discounts. In the control group, we made no changes. After eighteen months, we surveyed people from both groups and collected data on an assortment of outcomes, including whether they were employed outside of subsistence agriculture (the most common type of work in the region) and how many assets they owned. We even gave children basic tests, as a frequent assertion is that electricity helps children perform better in school since they are able to study at night.

When we analyzed the data, we found no differences between the treatment and control groups. The rural electrification agency had spent more than $1,000 to connect each household. Yet eighteen months later, the households we connected seemed to be no better off. Even the children’s test scores were more or less the same. The results of our experiment were discouraging, and at odds with the popular view that supplying households with access to electricity will drive economic development. Lifting people out of poverty may require a more comprehensive approach to ensure that electricity is not only affordable (with some evidence that EV growth can benefit all customers in mature markets), but is also reliable, useable, and available to the whole community, paired with other important investments.

For instance, in many low-income countries, the grid has frequent blackouts and maintenance problems, making electricity unreliable, as seen in Nigeria's electricity crisis in recent years. Even if the grid were reliable, poor households may not be able to afford the appliances that would allow for more than just lighting and cell phone charging. In our data, households barely bought any appliances and they used just 3 kilowatt-hours per month. Compare that to the U.S. average of 900 kilowatt-hours per month, a figure that could rise as EV adoption increases electricity demand over time.

There are also other factors to consider. After all, correlation does not equal causation. There is no doubt that the 1.1 billion people without power are the world’s poorest citizens. But this is not the only challenge they face. The poor may also lack running water, basic sanitation, consistent food supplies, quality education, sufficient health care, political influence, and a host of other factors that may be harder to measure but are no less important to well-being. Prioritizing investments in some of these other factors may lead to higher immediate returns. Previous work by one of my co-authors, for example, shows substantial economic gains from government spending on treatment for intestinal worms in children.

It’s possible that our results don’t generalize. They certainly don’t apply to enhancing electricity services for non-residential customers, like factories, hospitals, and schools, and electric utilities adapting to new load patterns. Perhaps the households we studied in Western Kenya are particularly poor (although measures of well-being suggest they are comparable to rural households across Sub-Saharan Africa) or politically disenfranchised. Perhaps if we had waited longer, or if we had electrified an entire region, the household impacts we measured would have been much greater. But others who have studied this question have found similar results. One study, also conducted in Western Kenya, found that subsidizing solar lamps helped families save on kerosene, but did not lead children to study more. Another study found that installing solar-powered microgrids in Indian villages resulted in no socioeconomic benefits.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Eskom Wind Power Curtailment reflects South Africa's lockdown-driven drop in electricity demand, prompting grid-balancing measures as Eskom signals reduced IPP procurement from renewable energy projects during low-demand hours, despite guarantees and flexible generation constraints.

Key Points

A temporary reduction of wind IPP purchases by Eskom to balance surplus grid capacity during the COVID-19 lockdown slump

✅ Demand drop of 7,500 MW reduced need for variable renewables.

✅ Curtailment likely during low-demand early-morning hours.

✅ IPP revenues protected via contract extensions and guarantees.

South African state utility Eskom has told independent wind farms that it could buy less of their power in the coming days, as electricity demand has plummeted during a lockdown, reflecting the Covid-19 impact on renewables worldwide, aimed at curbing the spread of the coronavirus.

Eskom, which is mired in a financial crisis and has struggled to keep the lights on in the past year, said on Tuesday that power demand had dropped by more than 7,500 megawatts since the lockdown started on Friday and that it had taken offline some of its own generators.

The utility supplements its generating capacity, which is mainly derived from coal, by buying power from solar and wind farms, as wind becomes a competitive source of electricity globally, under contracts signed as part of the government’s renewable energy programme.

Spokesman Sikonathi Mantshantsha said Eskom had not yet curtailed power procurement from wind farms but that it had told them, echoing industry warnings on wind investment risk seen by the sector, this could happen “for a few hours a day during the next few days, perhaps until the lockdown is lifted”.

“Most of them are able to feed power into the grid in the early hours of the day. That coincides with the lowest demand period and can highlight curtailment challenges when supply exceeds need. And we now have a lot more capacity than needed,” Mantshantsha said.

During the lockdown imposed by President Cyril Ramaphosa, businesses apart from those deemed “essential services” are closed, mirroring Spanish wind factory closures elsewhere. Many power-hungry mines and furnaces have suspended operations.

Eskom has relatively little of its own “flexible generation” capacity, which can be ramped up or down easily, unlike regions riding a renewables boom in South Australia to export power.

The government has committed to buy up to 200 billion rand ($11.1 billion) of electricity from independent power producers and has issued state guarantees for those purchases.

“They will be compensated for their losses, amid U.S. utility-solar slowdowns being reported - each day lost will be added to their contracts,” Mantshantsha said of the wind farms. “In the end they will not be worse off.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Alberta Electricity Price Hikes spotlight grid reliability, renewable transition, coal phase-out, and energy poverty, as policy shifts and investor reports warn of rate increases, biomass trade-offs, and sustainability challenges impacting households and businesses.

Key Points

Projected power bill hikes from market reforms, renewables, coal phase-out, and reliability costs in Alberta.

✅ Investor report projects 3x-7x bills and $50B market transition costs

✅ Policy missteps cited in Ontario, Germany, Australia price spikes

✅ Debate: retain coal vs. speed renewables, storage, and grid upgrades

Since when did electricity become a scarce resource?

I thought all the talk about greening the grid was about having renewable, sustainable, less polluting options to fulfill our growing need for power. Yet, increasingly, we are faced with news stories that indicate using power is bad in and of itself, even as flat electricity demand worries utilities.

The implication, I guess, is that we should be using less of it. But, I don’t want to use less electricity. I want to be able to watch TV, turn my lights on when the sun sets at 4 p.m. in the winter, keep my food cold and power my devices.

We once had a consensus that a reliable supply of power was essential to a growing economy and a high quality of life, a point underscored by brownout risks in U.S. markets.

I’m beginning to wonder if we still have that consensus.

And more importantly, if our decision makers have determined electricity is a vice as opposed to an essential of life – as debates over Alberta electricity policy suggest – you know what is going to happen next. Prices are going to rise, forcing all of us to use less.

How much would it hurt your bottom line if your electricity bill went up three-fold? How about seven-fold? That is the grim picture that Todd Beasley painted for us on Tuesday’s show.

Last week, he launched a campaign on behalf of Albertans for Sustainable Electricity, called Stop the Shock. He shared the results of an internal investor report that concluded Alberta’s power market overhaul would cost an estimated $50 billion to implement and could result in a three to seven-fold increase in electricity bills.

Now, my typical power bill averages $70 a month. That would be like having it grow to $210 a month, or just over $2,500 a year. If it’s a seven-fold increase that would be more like $5,000 a year. That may be manageable for some families, but I can think of a lot of things I’d rather do with $5,000 than pay more to keep my fridge running so my food doesn’t spoil.

For low-income families that would be a real hardship.

Beasley said Ontario’s inept handling of its electricity market and the phase-out of coal power resulted in price spikes that left more than 70,000 individuals facing energy poverty.

Germany and Australia realized they made the same mistake and are returning some electricity to coal.

Beasley shared a long list of Canadian firms – including our own Canadian Pension Plan – that are investing in coal development around the world. Meanwhile, Canadian governments remain in a mad rush to phase it out here. That’s not the only hypocrisy.

Rupert Darwall, author of Green Tyranny: Exposing the Totalitarian Roots of the Climate Industrial Complex, revealed in a recent column what he calls “the scandal at the heart of the EU’s renewable policies.”

Turns out most of their expansion in renewable energy has come from biomass in the form of wood. Not only does burning wood produce more CO2, it also eliminates carbon sinks.

To meet the EU’s 2030 target would require cutting down trees equivalent to the combined harvest in Canada and the United States. As he puts it, “Whichever way you look at it, burning the world’s carbon sinks to meet the EU’s arbitrary renewable energy targets is environmentally insane.”

Beasley’s group is trying to bring some sanity back to the discussion. The goal should be to move to a greener grid while maintaining abundant, reliable and cheap power, and examples like Texas grid improvements show practical steps. He thinks to achieve all these goals, coal should remain part of the mix. What do you think?

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Hydroelectric retrofits for unpowered dams leverage turbines to add renewable capacity, bolster grid reliability, and enable low-impact energy storage, supporting U.S. and Canada decarbonization goals with lower costs, minimal habitat disruption, and climate resilience.

Key Points

They add turbines to existing dams to make clean power, stabilize the grid, and offer low-impact storage at lower cost.

✅ Lower capex than new dams; minimal habitat disruption

✅ Adds firming and storage to support wind and solar

✅ New low-head turbines unlock more retrofit sites

As countries race to get their power grids off fossil fuels to fight climate change, there's a big push in the U.S. to upgrade dams built for purposes such as water management or navigation with a feature they never had before — hydroelectric turbines. 

And the strategy is being used in parts of Canada, too, with growing interest in hydropower from Canada supplying New York and New England.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration says only three per cent of 90,000 U.S. dams currently generate electricity. A 2012 report from the U.S. Department of Energy found that those dams have 12,000 megawatts (MW) of potential hydroelectric generation capacity. (According to the National Hydropower Association, 1 MW can power 750 to 1,000 homes. That means 12,000 MW should be able to power more than nine million homes.)

As of May 2019, there were projects planned to convert 32 unpowered dams to add 330 MW to the grid over the next several years.

One that was recently completed was the Red Rock Hydroelectric Project, a 60-year-old flood control dam on the Des Moines River in Iowa that was retrofitted in 2014 to generate 36.4 MW at normal reservoir levels, and up to 55 MW at high reservoir levels and flows. It started feeding power to the grid this spring, and is expected to generate enough annually to supply power to 18,000 homes.

It's an approach that advocates say can convert more of the grid from fossil fuels to clean energy, often with a lower cost and environmental impact than building new dams.

Hydroelectric facilities can also be used for energy storage, complementing intermittent clean energy sources such as wind and solar with pumped storage to help maintain a more reliable, resilient grid.

The Nature Conservancy and the World Wildlife Fund are two environmental groups that oppose new hydro dams because they can block fish migration, harm water quality, damage surrounding ecosystems and release methane and CO2, and in some regions, Western Canada drought has reduced hydropower output as reservoirs run low. But they say adding turbines to non-powered dams can be part of a shift toward low-impact hydro projects that can support expansion of solar and wind power.

Paul Norris, president of the Ontario Waterpower Association, said there's typically widespread community support for such projects in his province amid ongoing debate over whether Ontario is embracing clean power in its future plans. "Any time that you can better use existing assets, I think that's a good thing."

New turbine technology means water doesn't need to fall from as great a height to generate power, providing opportunities at sites that weren't commercially viable in the past, Norris said, with recent investments such as new turbines in Manitoba showing what is possible.

In Ontario, about 1,000 unpowered dams are owned by various levels of government. "With the appropriate policy framework, many of these assets have the potential to be retrofitted for small hydro," Norris wrote in a letter to Ontario's Independent Electricity System Operator this year as part of a discussion on small-scale local energy generation resources.

He told CBC that several such projects are already in operation, such as a 950 kW retrofit of the McLeod Dam at the Moira River in Belleville, Ont., in 2008. 

Four hydro stations were going to be added during dam refurbishment on the Trent-Severn Waterway, but they were among 758 renewable energy projects cancelled by Premier Doug Ford's government after his election in 2018, a move examined in an analysis of Ontario's dirtier electricity outlook and its implications.

Patrick Bateman, senior vice-president of Waterpower Canada, said such dam retrofit projects are uncommon in most provinces. "I don't see it being a large part of the future electricity generation capacity."

He said there has been less movement on retrofitting unpowered dams in Canada compared to the U.S., because:

There are a lot more opportunities in Canada to refurbish large, existing hydro-generating stations to boost capacity on a bigger scale.

There's less growth in demand for clean energy, because more of Canada's grid is already non-carbon-emitting (80 per cent) compared to the U.S. (40 per cent).

Even so, Norris thinks Canadians should be looking at all opportunities and options when it comes to transitioning the grid away from fossil fuels, including retrofitting non-powered dams, especially as a recent report highlights Canada's looming power problem over the coming decades.

"If we're going to be serious about addressing the inevitable challenges associated with climate change targets and net zero, it really is an all-of-the-above approach."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

UAE Nuclear Power Plant launches the Barakah facility, delivering clean electricity to the Middle East under IAEA safeguards amid Gulf tensions, proliferation risks, and debates over renewables, natural gas, grid resilience, and energy security.

Key Points

The UAE Nuclear Power Plant, Barakah, is a civilian facility expected to supply 25% of electricity under IAEA oversight.

✅ Barakah reactors target 25% of national electricity.

✅ Operates under IAEA oversight, no enrichment per US 123 deal.

✅ Raises regional security, proliferation, and environmental concerns.

The United Arab Emirates became the first Arab country to open a nuclear power plant on Saturday, following a crucial step in Abu Dhabi earlier in the project, raising concerns about the long-term consequences of introducing more nuclear programs to the Middle East.

Two other countries in the region — Israel and Iran — already have nuclear capabilities. Israel has an unacknowledged nuclear weapons arsenal and Iran has a controversial uranium enrichment program that it insists is solely for peaceful purposes.

The U.A.E., a tiny nation that has become a regional heavyweight and international business center, said it built the plant to decrease its reliance on the oil that has powered and enriched the country and its Gulf neighbors for decades. It said that once its four units were all running, the South Korean-designed plant would provide a quarter of the country’s electricity, with Unit 1 reaching 100% power as a milestone toward commercial operations.

Seeking to quiet fears that it was trying to build muscle to use against its regional rivals, it has insisted that it intends to use its nuclear program only for energy purposes.

But with Iran in a standoff with Western powers over its nuclear program, Israel in the neighborhood and tensions high among Gulf countries, some analysts view the new plant — and any that may follow — as a security and environmental headache. Other Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia and Iraq, are also starting or planning nuclear energy programs.

The Middle East is already riven with enmities that pit Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. against Iran, Qatar and Iran’s regional proxies. One of those proxies, the Yemen-based Houthi rebel group, claimed an attack on the Barakah plant when it was under construction in 2017.

And Iran is widely believed to be behind a series of attacks on Saudi oil facilities and oil tankers passing through the Gulf over the last year.

“The UAE’s investment in these four nuclear reactors risks further destabilizing the volatile Gulf region, damaging the environment and raising the possibility of nuclear proliferation,” Paul Dorfman, a researcher at University College London’s Energy Institute, wrote in an op-ed in March.

Noting that the U.A.E. had other energy options, including “some of the best solar energy resources in the world,” he added that “the nature of Emirate interest in nuclear may lie hidden in plain sight — nuclear weapon proliferation.”
But the U.A.E. has said it considered natural gas and renewable energy sources before dismissing them in favor of nuclear energy because they would not produce enough for its needs.

Offering evidence that its intentions are peaceful, it points to its collaborations with the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has reviewed the Barakah project, and the United States, with which it signed a nuclear energy cooperation agreement in 2009 that allows it to receive nuclear materials and technical assistance from the United States while barring it from uranium enrichment and other possible bomb-development activities.

That has not persuaded Qatar, which last year lodged a complaint with the international nuclear watchdog group over the Barakah plant, calling it “a serious threat to the stability of the region and its environment.”

The U.A.E.’s oil exports account for about a quarter of its total gross domestic product. Despite its gusher of oil, it has imported increasing amounts of natural gas in recent years in part to power its energy-intensive desalination plants.

“We proudly witness the start of Barakah nuclear power plant operations, in alignment with the highest international safety standards,” Mohammed bin Zayed, the U.A.E.’s de facto ruler, tweeted on Saturday.

The new nuclear facility, which is in the Gharbiya region on the coast, close to Qatar and Saudi Arabia, is the first of several prospective Middle East nuclear plants, even as Europe reduces nuclear capacity elsewhere. Egypt plans to build a power plant with four nuclear reactors.

Saudi Arabia is also building a civilian nuclear reactor while pursuing a nuclear cooperation deal with the United States, and globally, China's nuclear program remains on a steady development track, though the Trump administration has said it would sign such an agreement only if it includes safeguards against weapons development.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News